Bill Protecting Defenders Of Traditional Marriage Reintroduced In Congress

[smac97]

Here:

 

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers on Wednesday that would prohibit the federal government from denying tax exemptions or other government benefits to individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage.

 

"Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order," the bill states.

 

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or from disallowing tax deductions for charitable donations to them.

 

The bill would also “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” according to a press release from Lee’s office.

...

“The vast majority of Americans today still hold a robust view of religious liberty, yet across the country the right of conscience is threatened by state and local governments that coerce, intimidate, and penalize individuals, associations, and businesses who believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The First Amendment Defense Act is necessary to ensure that this kind of government excess never occurs at the federal level,” Lee said.

 

“Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American,” Labrador added. “America set the standard for upholding freedom of belief and worship in a diverse society. No American should ever doubt these protections enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

“Our bill ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage. Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right,” Labrador said.

 

A PDF file of the bill is available here.  It may be noteworthy that the two senators who introduced this bill, Mike Lee (UT) and Raul Labrador (ID) are LDS.

 

A few questions to get the discussion going:

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the general objective of this bill?

 

2. Do you find any particular provision of the bill problematic?

 

3. Do you think this bill is unnecessary, or that it is "tiling at windmills?"

 

4. Do you find any of the "Findings" in section 2 of the bill concerning (see, e.g., No. 3 - "Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that '‘t’s certainly going to be an issue’.")?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

Here's another interesting and somewhat related news item:

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio (BP) -- The current and 16 former Southern Baptist Convention presidents released a statement on biblical marriage and the national implications of same-sex marriage in a June 17 news conference prior to the concluding sessions of the SBC annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

 

SBC President Ronnie Floyd moderated the news conference, attended by eight of the former presidents.

 

The full statement follows:

 

As Southern Baptist Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of Believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God's Truth as central to our lives.

 

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures' teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

 

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex "marriages", our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

 

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God's design for marriage. We also believe religious freedom is at stake within this critical issue – that our first duty is to love and obey God, not man.

 

Therefore, we strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God's design for life and relationships. As the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination with over 16 million members, we stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God's Word.

 

We also join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers and influence, and resources.

 

That third paragraph is interesting.  Here it is again: "Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex 'marriages', our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies."

 

One of the most common refrains we've heard from the pro-SSM folks is that re-defining marriage won't hurt anyone.  If that is so, then why is legislation being presented to "protect" religious liberty from potentially debilitating government actions against those religious groups/individuals who do not agree with SSM?  Why is the SBC declaring that it "will not recongize" SSMs, that its buildings will not host SSM ceremonies, and that SBC ministers will not perform such ceremonies?  Is it because they are concerned that failure to "toe the line" by refusing to solemnize/recognize SSMs may lead to types of disenfranchisement (such as those sought to be protected against in the Lee/Labrador bill)?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Here:

 

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers on Wednesday that would prohibit the federal government from denying tax exemptions or other government benefits to individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage.

 

"Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order," the bill states.

 

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or from disallowing tax deductions for charitable donations to them.

 

The bill would also “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” according to a press release from Lee’s office.

...

“The vast majority of Americans today still hold a robust view of religious liberty, yet across the country the right of conscience is threatened by state and local governments that coerce, intimidate, and penalize individuals, associations, and businesses who believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The First Amendment Defense Act is necessary to ensure that this kind of government excess never occurs at the federal level,” Lee said.

 

“Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American,” Labrador added. “America set the standard for upholding freedom of belief and worship in a diverse society. No American should ever doubt these protections enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

“Our bill ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage. Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right,” Labrador said.

 

A PDF file of the bill is available here.  It may be noteworthy that the two senators who introduced this bill, Mike Lee (UT) and Raul Labrador (ID) are LDS.

 

A few questions to get the discussion going:

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the general objective of this bill?

 

2. Do you find any particular provision of the bill problematic?

 

3. Do you think this bill is unnecessary, or that it is "tiling at windmills?"

 

4. Do you find any of the "Findings" in section 2 of the bill concerning (see, e.g., No. 3 - "Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that '‘t’s certainly going to be an issue’.")?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

This is legislation that is sorely needed at this time to prevent the political correctness tsunami from washing out freedom of conscience. I'm grateful the bill has been introduced, and I wish it success.

[Buckeye]

I just skimmed the bill. It does not protect "religious freedom" in a general sense. Rather, it protects only one small form of religious freedom - the freedom to teach against homosexuality. If religion is really under attack, why would hte bill be so limited as to protect only this one area of expression? Why not also protect churches that teach against interracial marriage, that teach that polygamy is an abomination, or that mormons are going to hell?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just skimmed the bill. It does not protect "religious freedom" in a general sense. Rather, it protects only one small form of religious freedom - the freedom to teach against homosexuality. If religion is really under attack, why would hte bill be so limited as to protect only this one area of expression? Why not also protect churches that teach against interracial marriage, that teach that polygamy is an abomination, or that mormons are going to hell?

The sad thing is that a bill needs to be brought forward to "protect teaching against homosexuality".

 

I am taking what you say at face value accepting your premise.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

I just skimmed the bill. It does not protect "religious freedom" in a general sense. Rather, it protects only one small form of religious freedom - the freedom to teach against homosexuality. If religion is really under attack, why would hte bill be so limited as to protect only this one area of expression? Why not also protect churches that teach against interracial marriage, that teach that polygamy is an abomination, or that mormons are going to hell?

I personally prefer narrow bills in order to avoid the vagueness that cause confusion and loopholes.

[smac97]

I just skimmed the bill. It does not protect "religious freedom" in a general sense.

Correct. It protects "religious freedom" in a somewhat narrow, but still very important, sense. There are many ways to hinder religious freedom. Overt, Kristallnacht-esque attacks would probably not go over well on the evening news. But there are other, more subtle ways of destroying a religion, such as interfering with its assets, finances and activities.  Here's an example of how that can play out:

 

NEW YORK - Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.

For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,’’ said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services.

 

There are all sorts of ways the government can use similar tactics to coerce religious groups and individuals into capitulating on same-sex marriage or else punishing them if they don't.  Here are a few more examples.

 

Rather, it protects only one small form of religious freedom - the freedom to teach against homosexuality.

That strikes me as a good thing. This legislation is fairly tightly-drafted and narrowly-focused, which makes it easier to pass, and also more likely to pass constitutional muster and thus survive the inevitable "lawfare" challenges to it.

 

If religion is really under attack, why would hte bill be so limited as to protect only this one area of expression?

See above. We progress as a society in fits and spurts. Great leaps forward can have some serious downsides. This bill is not intended to be a cure-all for every threat against religious liberty in America.

Why not also protect churches that teach against interracial marriage, that teach that polygamy is an abomination, or that mormons are going to hell?

I'm not inclined to treat this as a serious inquiry, so I will not address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I personally prefer narrow bills in order to avoid the vagueness that cause confusion and loopholes.

And make them more prone to opposition and defeat.

[thesometimesaint]

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) have official jumped the shark.

[rockpond]

 

Here:

 

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers on Wednesday that would prohibit the federal government from denying tax exemptions or other government benefits to individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage.

 

"Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order," the bill states.

 

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or from disallowing tax deductions for charitable donations to them.

 

The bill would also “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” according to a press release from Lee’s office.

...

“The vast majority of Americans today still hold a robust view of religious liberty, yet across the country the right of conscience is threatened by state and local governments that coerce, intimidate, and penalize individuals, associations, and businesses who believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The First Amendment Defense Act is necessary to ensure that this kind of government excess never occurs at the federal level,” Lee said.

 

“Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American,” Labrador added. “America set the standard for upholding freedom of belief and worship in a diverse society. No American should ever doubt these protections enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

“Our bill ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage. Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right,” Labrador said.

 

A PDF file of the bill is available here.  It may be noteworthy that the two senators who introduced this bill, Mike Lee (UT) and Raul Labrador (ID) are LDS.

 

A few questions to get the discussion going:

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the general objective of this bill?

 

2. Do you find any particular provision of the bill problematic?

 

3. Do you think this bill is unnecessary, or that it is "tiling at windmills?"

 

4. Do you find any of the "Findings" in section 2 of the bill concerning (see, e.g., No. 3 - "Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that '‘t’s certainly going to be an issue’.")?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I agree with the general objective.

 

2. The only thing I find problematic is that it shouldn't be necessary.

 

3. It's concerning enough for people right now that I think go ahead and get it passed to put people at ease.

 

4. I am personally not concerned with the findings but they do support the need for the bill.

[cinepro]

Here's another interesting and somewhat related news item:

 

 

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures' teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex "marriages", our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

Honestly, it's ignorant statements like this that just destroy the religious foundation for objecting to SSM. As any LDS would tell him, the Bible is not "definitive" and "unchanging" in the marriage arrangements God promotes.

Edited June 19, 2015 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

I personally prefer narrow bills in order to avoid the vagueness that cause confusion and loopholes.

 

But then the bill needs to be sold as being very narrow. The media cited in the OP lead by saying this would "protect religious freedom." That's false. It only protects one very limited religious freedom (putting aside whether that freedom is really under attack)

[Scott Lloyd]

But then the bill needs to be sold as being very narrow. The media cited in the OP lead by saying this would "protect religious freedom." That's false. It only protects one very limited religious freedom (putting aside whether that freedom is really under attack)

Safeguarding any aspect of religious freedom is in effect safeguarding religious freedom in concept. I don't see it as being false or even misleading.

 

If a city puts warning signs at pedestrian crossings, it arguably has, in effect, made the streets safer, even though perhaps more could be done to make them yet safer.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

 

A few questions to get the discussion going:

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the general objective of this bill?

 

2. Do you find any particular provision of the bill problematic?

 

3. Do you think this bill is unnecessary, or that it is "tiling at windmills?"

 

4. Do you find any of the "Findings" in section 2 of the bill concerning (see, e.g., No. 3 - "Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that '‘t’s certainly going to be an issue’.")?

 

1- I don't believe that churches have rights; I believe that people have rights. People should be totally free to believe and say whatever they want, including when they are assembled as a church.  If somebody breaks the law, her or she should not be given a pass merely because his or her motivation is religious in nature.

 

"Freedom of religion" does not mean churches have the right to receive government contracts to perform government services with money generated from taxes.  The government has the total right to only subcontract with organizations it wants to, including only subcontracting to organizations that embrace mainstream norms of tolerance.  If a church feels coerced by the government's decisions of who it will and won't do business with, it really needs to do some introspection about why they are seeking business relationships with the government in the first place.

 

2- No opinion on the details of the bill.

 

3- In general, I don't believe something being religious in nature is sufficient grounds to make it tax-exempt.  In fact, when an entity receives the benefits of government but is exempt from paying taxes, the government is in effect subsidizing that entity.  That is because everyone else's tax burden must be increased to pay for the government benefits the tax-exempt entity receives but doesn't pay for.

 

4- One semantic issue that I'd like to address is what it means to "defend traditional marriage."  If that means promoting heterosexuals to get married and have loving, stable families, that's wonderful.  But when somebody is promoting the idea that same-sex families ought to be broken up and that the government should deny them the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage I would not call that "defending traditional marriage"; I would call that a form of bigotry.

 

If a private school has the promotion of bigotry as an important part of its curriculum, it isn't the least bit clear to me that it should receive government subsidies in the form of a tax-exempt status, even if religious.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Analytics

[BookofMormonLuvr]

1- I don't believe that churches have rights; I believe that people have rights. People should be totally free to believe and say whatever they want, including when they are assembled as a church.  If somebody breaks the law, her or she should not be given a pass merely because his or her motivation is religious in nature.

 

"Freedom of religion" does not mean churches have the right to receive government contracts to perform government services with money generated from taxes.  The government has the total right to only subcontract with organizations it wants to, including only subcontracting to organizations that embrace mainstream norms of tolerance.  If a church feels coerced by the government's decisions of who it will and won't do business with, it really needs to do some introspection about why they are seeking business relationships with the government in the first place.

 

2- No opinion on the details of the bill.

 

3- In general, I don't believe something being religious in nature is sufficient grounds to make it tax-exempt.  In fact, when an entity receives the benefits of government but is exempt from paying taxes, the government is in effect subsidizing that entity.  That is because everyone else's tax burden must be increased to pay for the government benefits the tax-exempt entity receives but doesn't pay for.

 

4- One semantic issue that I'd like to address is what it means to "defend traditional marriage."  If that means promoting heterosexuals to get married and have loving, stable families, that's wonderful.  But when somebody is promoting the idea that same-sex families ought to be broken up and that the government should deny them the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage I would not call that "defending traditional marriage"; I would call that a form of bigotry.

 

If a private school has the promotion of bigotry as an important part of its curriculum, it isn't the least bit clear to me that it should receive government subsidies in the form of a tax-exempt status, even if religious.

The flaw in your analysis is that ALL religious organizations have the opportunity to become lawfully tax-exempt- so the state is not establishing A religion- they are treating ALL fairly. Tax-exempt status for religious organizations is important because it frees up cash that can be used towards charitable and society benefiting uses.

Edited June 19, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[The Nehor]

The sad thing is that a bill needs to be brought forward to "protect teaching against homosexuality".

 

I am taking what you say at face value accepting your premise.

I question whether such a bill needs to be brought forward. Someone doing something is not proof that it is needed.

[The Nehor]

Honestly, it's ignorant statements like this that just destroy the religious foundation for objecting to SSM. As any LDS would tell him, the Bible is not "definitive" and "unchanging" in the marriage arrangements God promotes.

I am not marrying my sister in law if my brother dies. Just saying.

[Storm Rider]

I am concerned when society loses such services as those previously offered by the Catholic Church.  Gay couples are not being persecuted by not being served by Catholic Services; children and the vast majority of other couples are being persecuted because they no longer have access to a service designed to served them.  

 

Religious beliefs are being thrown under the bus in order to meet the needs of a very, very small minority of our citizens that are already being served by other groups designed to serve them. 

[Russell C McGregor]

1- I don't believe that churches have rights; I believe that people have rights.

You mean -- in much the same way as couples don't have rights, but individuals do?

 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I am not marrying my sister in law if my brother dies. Just saying.

Sinner.

[california boy]

Correct. It protects "religious freedom" in a somewhat narrow, but still very important, sense. There are many ways to hinder religious freedom. Overt, Kristallnacht-esque attacks would probably not go over well on the evening news. But there are other, more subtle ways of destroying a religion, such as interfering with its assets, finances and activities. Here's an example of how that can play out:

NEW YORK - Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.

For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,’’ said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services.

There are all sorts of ways the government can use similar tactics to coerce religious groups and individuals into capitulating on same-sex marriage or else punishing them if they don't. Here are a few more examples.

That strikes me as a good thing. This legislation is fairly tightly-drafted and narrowly-focused, which makes it easier to pass, and also more likely to pass constitutional muster and thus survive the inevitable "lawfare" challenges to it.

See above. We progress as a society in fits and spurts. Great leaps forward can have some serious downsides. This bill is not intended to be a cure-all for every threat against religious liberty in America.

I'm not inclined to treat this as a serious inquiry, so I will not address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Catholic services was contracted by the government to provide adoption services to all of the public without discrimination. If they in good conscience provide that service they should no longer accept money from the government. They broke the contract. The government should contract with a business that will meet the requirements the government asks for. This is NOT an attack on religion, this is a severing of a business relationship

sorry but since 1964 the government is not that keen on the whole discrimination thing. Why would they start now?

[Analytics]

I am concerned when society loses such services as those previously offered by the Catholic Church.  Gay couples are not being persecuted by not being served by Catholic Services; children and the vast majority of other couples are being persecuted because they no longer have access to a service designed to served them.  

 

Religious beliefs are being thrown under the bus in order to meet the needs of a very, very small minority of our citizens that are already being served by other groups designed to serve them. 

 

Just to make sure I understand your point, you are claiming that the Catholic Church cannot provide these services without being paid to do so by the government, and that the government cannot get these services done without subcontracting to the Catholic Church.  These services are entitlements that people have a right to receive, and it is "persecution" if they don't get them.  Therefore, if the government requires its contractors not to discriminate and this particular contractor pulls out because it can't in good conscious abide by these nondiscrimination standards, the result is "persecution" against everybody who would have been receiving these government entitlements through the Catholic Church but now no longer can.

 

Is that a fair representation of your position?

Edited June 19, 2015 by Analytics

[Russell C McGregor]

Catholic services was contracted by the government to provide adoption services to all of the public without discrimination. If they in good conscience provide that service they should no longer accept money from the government. They broke the contract. The government should contract with a business that will meet the requirements the government asks for. This is NOT an attack on religion, this is a severing of a business relationship

sorry but since 1964 the government is not that keen on the whole discrimination thing. Why would they start now?

The government knew, when they entered into a contractual arrangement with Catholic Services, that it was a Catholic organisation.

And that, as such, it is going to be governed by Catholic principles.

Including, but not limited to, their moral standards.

They've been "discriminating against" unmarried couples for as long as they've been in operation. Why would any reasonable person expect them to jettison those moral standards in favour of the current "gay marriage" fad?

[Analytics]

The flaw in your analysis is that ALL religious organizations have the opportunity to become lawfully tax-exempt- so the state is not establishing A religion- they are treating ALL fairly. Tax-exempt status for religious organizations is important because it frees up cash that can be used towards charitable and society benefiting uses.

 

I disagree.  Giving religion tax breaks causes government favoritism of religion vs. non-religion, and favoritism of more-capital-intensive religion vs. less-capital-intensive religion.  It isn't the government's role to favor some religions over others, nor is it its role to favor religion over non-religion.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Analytics

[california boy]

Here's another interesting and somewhat related news item:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (BP) -- The current and 16 former Southern Baptist Convention presidents released a statement on biblical marriage and the national implications of same-sex marriage in a June 17 news conference prior to the concluding sessions of the SBC annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

SBC President Ronnie Floyd moderated the news conference, attended by eight of the former presidents.

The full statement follows:

As Southern Baptist Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of Believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God's Truth as central to our lives.

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures' teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex "marriages", our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God's design for marriage. We also believe religious freedom is at stake within this critical issue – that our first duty is to love and obey God, not man.

Therefore, we strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God's design for life and relationships. As the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination with over 16 million members, we stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God's Word.

We also join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers and influence, and resources.

That third paragraph is interesting. Here it is again: "Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex 'marriages', our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies."

One of the most common refrains we've heard from the pro-SSM folks is that re-defining marriage won't hurt anyone. If that is so, then why is legislation being presented to "protect" religious liberty from potentially debilitating government actions against those religious groups/individuals who do not agree with SSM? Why is the SBC declaring that it "will not recongize" SSMs, that its buildings will not host SSM ceremonies, and that SBC ministers will not perform such ceremonies? Is it because they are concerned that failure to "toe the line" by refusing to solemnize/recognize SSMs may lead to types of disenfranchisement (such as those sought to be protected against in the Lee/Labrador bill)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I fully support southern Baptists Conference's right to enact all of these principles. This is what is really religious freedom means in this country.

What it is not about is some kind of exemption in public accommodations laws. The courts agree.